Other State Saint Benitez about to lob the holy hand grenade onto CA gun laws

[ilikegunspdx]

I think the ca 9th was/is stalling so the OR anti-gun judge immergut lawsuits could play out. If immergut allows all OR m114 to proceed, then it gets appealed to the CA 9th, who then confirm immergut's ruling, they have a way to see if they can chip away at bruen armed with the most ammunition. Without that there is really nothing they can do in the post-bruen landscape to ban guns, mags etc.

Immergut was/is their Guinea pig to see how much they can get through post bruen (ie test the boundaries of bruen). However the Harney county judge has put a stop to everything so their tactic is dead in the water for now. Expect max delays from ca 9th so they can get their plan back on track after the Harney county suit has run its course. That would be after raschio's future ruling in favor of Goa, then appealed to OR Supreme Court, who then overturns rachio's ruling. After that the state track lawsuit would be dead and fed track immergut case would be controlling (ie all m114 laws will be back in effect) and their plan would be back on track.

It's going to go to scotus eventually it's only a question of when and in what form. I'm sure the anti-gun ca 9th and ca would rather not have Benitez's well reasoned ruling (which would then be shut down by CA 9th) go there. They would probably rather have immergut's ruling with ca 9ths stamp of approval go there. If they can delay things long enough they may get their wish. I do think scotus will put a stop to their crap irregardless fwiw, whenever it finally gets there.

The other dynamic to delaying things is it gives the anti-gun courts such as immergut and ca 9th and anti-gunners time to try to find historical analogs or at least craft some type of reasonable argument. Since bruen they haven't been able to.

 

[nehalemguy]

Right I get that, but if it was pushed back from the higher court (9th) then why would it go back to them again....that makes no sense ? didn't it already get appealed and go up to them ?

I believe it was the SCOTUS who vacated the 9th Circuit's decision and sent it back to the lower courts with a "Try again." note attached to it.

-E-

 

[Yarome]

The other dynamic to delaying things is it gives the anti-gun courts such as immergut and ca 9th and anti-gunners time to try to find historical analogs or at least craft some type of reasonable argument. Since bruen they haven't been able to.

The states (OR) attempt at historical analog....

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.170381/gov.uscourts.ord.170381.123.0.pdf

 

[Ura-Ki]

The states (OR) attempt at historical analog....

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.170381/gov.uscourts.ord.170381.123.0.pdf

The states so called Exspurt is a crack pot shill who is really reaching for ghosts, and in fact could NOT state a single relevant fed law ( that survived congressional or court scrutiny ) in this case, instead, he twice mentions (With out specifically calling it out) the National Firearms Act of 1934, something the SCOTUS specifically forbids in it's Bruen commands, so,...................this "Witness" is totally and completely irrelevant to the Case, and hardly worth his $500 per hour fees! Nice try Oregon, and thanks for spending all that tax money on this lefty cuck!

 

[GWS]

Two possibilities:

1) Stalling strategy to keep the bans in place as long as possible using ping pong, in hopes that some pro 2nd justices die and get replaced by Biden.
2) Keep pro-2nd wins contained to only within CA, and not applied to other states within the 9th circuit. This would obviously require CA to be a willing participant to not appeal any subsequent losses to the 9th Circuit.

Yeeaahh... That's NEVER going to happen.

 

[Librarian]

I believe it was the SCOTUS who vacated the 9th Circuit's decision and sent it back to the lower courts with a "Try again." note attached to it.

-E-

Mostly. Using Duncan as the example (Rhode, Miller, and Fouts all got the same treatment)

SCOTUS sent it back to the court that had it before SCOTUS, 9TH circuit.

The Supreme Court remanded this case to us "for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ____ (2022)." Duncan v. Bonta, No. 21-1194, 2022 WL 2347579, at *1 (U.S. June 30, 2022). Therefore, the parties are directed to file supplemental briefs on the effect of Bruen on this appeal, including whether the en banc panel should remand this case to the district court for further proceedings in the first instance. The briefs should be filed within 21 days of the issuance of this order and should not exceed 7,000 words.
FILED AUG 2 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS Case 3:17-cv-01017-BEN-JLB Document 109 Filed 08/02/22 PageID.8243 Page 1 of 1

Then, on 9-26-22, we get

This Court was again affirmed on appeal. Duncan v. Becerra, Appeal No. 19-55376 (9th Cir. Aug. 14, 2020). The Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc, vacated its opinion, and entered an opinion reversing the judgment of this Court. Duncan v. Bonta, Appeal No. 19-55376 (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2021). The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and vacated the opinion of the Ninth Circuit and remanded for further consideration. Duncan v. Bonta, No. 21-1194, 142 S. Ct. 2895 (June 30, 2022). The Ninth Circuit now remands the case to this Court for further proceedings in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) and the mandate has issued.

I concur with the speculation that this is a delaying tactic by the 9th, with the expectation that in about 3 years, when these cases get back to SCOTUS, new justices may form a leftist majority.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Expect the Dems in Salem to come up with their own fix for BM114 this Spring with a gutted and stuffed bill.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

CA response to judge Benitez in miller v bonta is in.

Weird hair guy does great job of tearing it to shreds in the video below.

Anti gunners and anti gun judges such as Immergut in Oregon have no leg to stand on so they are desperately trying to come up with some reasonable argument. They are failing miserably.

It appears that the CA lawyers used all the same arguments as immergut did in OR. Fe mags are not arms, common use in self defense only vs common use in general, etc. So the Q is, did the lawyers use Immergut's arguments or did Immergut use theirs?

Since Federal judge Immergut supposedly wrote her 148 page ruling between thursday evening (the time at which the hearing in Pendleton closed) and Tuesday am (ie 4 days including weekend) she must have had almost (if not all) of it written before the hearing even started. Imo this is a coordinated attack folks, between anti-gun lawyers in CA and anti-gun judges. I would like to read immergut's ruling and the CA lawyers arguments side by side. I bet they are almost identical, but just a guess.

 

[Stomper]

CA response to judge Benitez in miller v bonta is in.

Weird hair guy does great job of tearing it to shreds in the video below.

Anti gunners and anti gun judges such as Immergut in Oregon have no leg to stand on so they are desperately trying to come up with some reasonable argument. They are failing miserably.

It appears that the CA lawyers used all the same arguments as immergut did in OR. Fe mags are not arms, common use in self defense only vs common use in general, etc. So the Q is, did the lawyers use Immergut's arguments or did Immergut use theirs?

Since Federal judge Immergut supposedly wrote her 148 page ruling between thursday evening (the time at which the hearing in Pendleton closed) and Tuesday am (ie 4 days including weekend) she must have had almost (if not all) of it written before the hearing even started. Imo this is a coordinated attack folks, between anti-gun lawyers in CA and anti-gun judges. I would like to read immergut's ruling and the CA lawyers arguments side by side. I bet they are almost identical, but just a guess.

That's because "collectivists" have limited imaginations and are only adept at imitating something original…. just like a quintessential parasite.

 

[SonicBlue03]

Right I get that, but if it was pushed back from the higher court (9th) then why would it go back to them again....that makes no sense ? didn't it already get appealed and go up to them ?

It's where the original case was heard and decided. The case is re-litigated under the new test and will have a new initial ruling. Then it will follow the appeals process up. The Appeals courts generally aren't going to reverse their decision based on a SCOTUS slap down. They push it all the way down and will evaluate the appeal based on the newly argued case.

 

[SonicBlue03]

I think the ca 9th was/is stalling so the OR anti-gun judge immergut lawsuits could play out. If immergut allows all OR m114 to proceed, then it gets appealed to the CA 9th, who then confirm immergut's ruling, they have a way to see if they can chip away at bruen armed with the most ammunition. Without that there is really nothing they can do in the post-bruen landscape to ban guns, mags etc.

Immergut was/is their Guinea pig to see how much they can get through post bruen (ie test the boundaries of bruen). However the Harney county judge has put a stop to everything so their tactic is dead in the water for now. Expect max delays from ca 9th so they can get their plan back on track after the Harney county suit has run its course. That would be after raschio's future ruling in favor of Goa, then appealed to OR Supreme Court, who then overturns rachio's ruling. After that the state track lawsuit would be dead and fed track immergut case would be controlling (ie all m114 laws will be back in effect) and their plan would be back on track.

It's going to go to scotus eventually it's only a question of when and in what form. I'm sure the anti-gun ca 9th and ca would rather not have Benitez's well reasoned ruling (which would then be shut down by CA 9th) go there. They would probably rather have immergut's ruling with ca 9ths stamp of approval go there. If they can delay things long enough they may get their wish. I do think scotus will put a stop to their crap irregardless fwiw, whenever it finally gets there.

The other dynamic to delaying things is it gives the anti-gun courts such as immergut and ca 9th and anti-gunners time to try to find historical analogs or at least craft some type of reasonable argument. Since bruen they haven't been able to.

OFF's attorneys mishandled that case AND Immergut ended up being a horrible draw for Oregon at the Federal level.
It would be best for the Oregon case not to be appealed and to let Duncan v. Bonta and all the other cases in the CA court go up. It's a better draw.

 

[Yarome]

OFF's attorneys mishandled that case AND Immergut ended up being a horrible draw for Oregon at the Federal level.
It would be best for the Oregon case not to be appealed and to let Duncan v. Bonta and all the other cases in the CA court go up. It's a better draw.

I dunno if it's so much that the case was mishandled... seeing how they are now all combined... as it is that no case is going to fair well with a corrupt judge that is willing to ignore their oath of office, completely disregard U.S. laws and abuse the power they have been entruted with to further their own personal agenda.

Just sayin....

 

[Ura-Ki]

CA response to judge Benitez in miller v bonta is in.

Weird hair guy does great job of tearing it to shreds in the video below.

Anti gunners and anti gun judges such as Immergut in Oregon have no leg to stand on so they are desperately trying to come up with some reasonable argument. They are failing miserably.

It appears that the CA lawyers used all the same arguments as immergut did in OR. Fe mags are not arms, common use in self defense only vs common use in general, etc. So the Q is, did the lawyers use Immergut's arguments or did Immergut use theirs?

Since Federal judge Immergut supposedly wrote her 148 page ruling between thursday evening (the time at which the hearing in Pendleton closed) and Tuesday am (ie 4 days including weekend) she must have had almost (if not all) of it written before the hearing even started. Imo this is a coordinated attack folks, between anti-gun lawyers in CA and anti-gun judges. I would like to read immergut's ruling and the CA lawyers arguments side by side. I bet they are almost identical, but just a guess.

You do know, the Fed. Judge does have a full staff of people to write briefs and other mumbo-jumbo lawyer sh!t, hell, I bet her staff had that written before lunch on Saturday, and they "Won" a cheeseburger for the effort!

 

[ilikegunspdx]

You do know, the Fed. Judge does have a full staff of people to write briefs and other mumbo-jumbo lawyer sh!t, hell, I bet her staff had that written before lunch on Saturday, and they "Won" a cheeseburger for the effort!

This is my opinion on that from my layman's perspective and I have only written expert testimony for one state (not OR) so I am far from an expert and don't know how many staff she has etc. I do know that her staff or her has to choose what to put into the ruling. And they chose anti-gun arguments that are in direct contradiction to Bruen, heller, MacDonald. They chose not to use any of the arguments used by judges such as Benitez.

It takes a very long time to research everything needed. It takes a long time to write stuff, even if it is just a few pages. It takes a very, very, long time to write precise legal arguments. It takes a long time to proof it. IMO there is no way in Hades this could be done in two working days or two working days plus weekend. The only way it could be done is if the arguments were done ahead of time. Also all of her questions in the hearing were exactly tailored along the arguments in the final ruling, which tells me the ruling and arguments were ready ahead of time. I just don't buy it for one second.

 

[titsonritz]

Politics maaaaan... it's all politics, maaaaaaan

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Looks like CA made a big boo-boo. They are arguing that magazines are like ammunition, not protected by 2A so therefore they don't have to come up with any historical analogs of magazines being banned in 1791.

But in 2014 the CA 9th ruled that ammunition is protected by 2A. Oops. They don't have a leg to stand on so they are reaching, reaching, for some kind of argument to ban magazines. Benitez is going to rip that one to shreds.

Suggest skipping to 8:40 mark in this video

 

[Buster1969]

Wake me when something happens.

 

[Librarian]

Wake me when something happens.

March, I believe.

Threads about Federal lawsuits always drift for a month or two, waiting for something meaningful to occur.

 

[Jay Walk]

Wake me when something happens.

Exactly, lower judges all over the nation just continue to do what they want while claiming

"Bruin is unclear" we don't know which way to interpret the opinion. Yeah...

 

[Yarome]

Looks like CA made a big boo-boo. They are arguing that magazines are like ammunition, not protected by 2A so therefore they don't have to come up with any historical analogs of magazines being banned in 1791.

But in 2014 the CA 9th ruled that ammunition is protected by 2A. Oops. They don't have a leg to stand on so they are reaching, reaching, for some kind of argument to ban magazines. Benitez is going to rip that one to shreds.

Suggest skipping to 8:40 mark in this video

They are trying to do the same in OR 114 that continues to amaze me. Ammo and mags have been ruled on ad naseam in the SCOTUS and case law is well established on those issues. Protected... period!

It's as if these "learned" attorneys have never cracked open a legal text before. More likely though, just employing the woketard standby when reading plain text... "well, that's one interpretation. Words only mean what we want them to mean and can't be taken at face value."

The tactic seems to be that simply presenting the question it somehow reopens the issue for re-interpretation by a judge more in favor of their folly's. "Smoke and mirrors".

Saint Benitez ain't gonna buy it... nor did Judge Raschio.